This isn't any different. Just cheaper and easier.
Nobody has any expectation of privacy from the sky, any more than they do from a public street.
In terms of potential harm, it's like the difference between a handgun and nuclear bomb.
And if someone wants to stalk you, it's far more cost-effective to hire someone to follow you physically. This doesn't change that. And just to be clear, I'm obviously not condoning stalking. Just saying this is a pretty bad tool for it.
So I don't see anything "nuclear" about this whatsoever.
(Also to be clear, the highest resolution available is half-meter. All you can do is basically figure out whether a car is present somewhere and its approximate color maybe. It's hard to establish the presence of a human at all, and you certainly can't tell who they are or read a license plate or anything even close to that.)
1. Resolution just isn't sharp enough and never will be to discern individual persons identity.
2. Latency, it takes time to upload an order the order. Satellite has to pass iber a groundstation to receive command,then be in pistion to take photo then pass iver ground station to download. Then go to post processing, QC then delivery. While latency may improve ot would ne uneconomic and practically useless due to 1. 3. Clouds. Unfotunately clouds appear and would make persistent surveillance even if you had the resolution(you don't) unlikely.
It's much easier and cheaper and infinitely more effective to use tags,ad tech on mobile phones and plain on PI for that type of stalking.
I hope this clarifies your concerns
This offering is a stalker's delight. The only thing that would make it worse is if they paid people to turn up to a specified location and take photos, like some sort of Uber for creeps.
At minimum, they should have a form where you can opt out of having your home included in this sold imagery. Better would be to notify all property owners and dwellers within a photographed region that the imagery has been purchased, with an option to opt-out. Best of all would be if everyone being photographed had to opt-in before a sale could be made. That would be a company taking privacy seriously rather than trying to profit from breaching it in bulk.
Google street view already exists as well, and I can, for not much more than this service costs, go pretty much anywhere within a few thousand km and look at something.
What we should be concerned about is large scale corporate uses of this data, which have been going on for years. For example, insurance companies or municipalities using satellite images to see if you make any changes to your property. Or license plate scanners for that matter.
Without dwelling on it, governments and companies want to apply our new ability to record everything always to a system of laws that were written when you couldn't. Laws and rules are flexible in how and when they are enforced for a reason, and any benefit from new surveillance accrues only to the government or company.
Loads of people complain about the NSA's bulk data collection for the purposes of national security, but we barely see any opposition to bulk aerial imaging such as this, despite it being even more of a privacy breach due lack of safeguards around who can obtain and exploit such data.